What does Clinton have to do with the Downing Street Memo?

Clinton used military action to enforce the no-fly zones and make Saddam comply with UN resolutions. Before 9/11/2001, the Bush administration stated explictly (as exemplified with the quotations I supplied above) that Saddam was contained, Iraq was not a threat to it's neighbors, and any WMD programs Saddam had were not (in Powell's words) "terribly successful". It seems to me that Clinton was highly successful according to the Bush administration.

9/11 hit and a week later, Cheney repeated that Saddam was contained. Al Quaida was the problem and the threat.

A year later, Saddam was the biggest threat this side of Hitler. Ties to Al Qaiada, 9/11, and stockpiles of WMD ready to be used against us were rolling off the lips of the Bush administration daily.

But the Downing Street Minutes clearly show, that there was at a minimum, no new intelligence to support the sudden change in reported by the Bush administration. This seems to be very clear.

Bush made the mistake and his defenders are deflecting that blame by trying to blame others WHO DID NOT LAUNCH AN INVASION WITHOUT UN APPROVAL.

Bush went to the UN the first time (Powell held up bottles of baby powder to scare us), but that did not authorize the use of force. They needed to go back a second time to get that authorization, but they refused to do so because they could not get the votes. Is that Clinton's fault too?

The minutes show the status quo. And that's the problem. Bush changed his tune without the intelligence to support it.

Are you saying that since invasion vs. lobbing missles is "a hundredfold increase" then only 1/100th as bad, so impeachment is not a "high crime"? Would [high crime X (1 / 100)] = impeachable? Couldn't you reasonably argue that lobbing missles without Congressional approval is perhaps an even greater offense?

OK, let's look at the Iraq War Resolution and reasons for authorizing military action - SPOT THE WAR RATIONALE BASED ON BUSH'S LIES

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
TRUE

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
TRUE

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
TRUE

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
TRUE

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
TRUE, UNLESS CLINTON / INTEL LIED IN '98

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
"CONTINUING THREAT" = LIE? TOO VAGUE TO SAY VS. OUR "CONTAINED" STATEMENTS IN 2001.
MATERIAL BREACH = TRUE
CONTINUING TO POSSESS AND DEVELOP = TRUE ACCORDING TO BLIX BUT HERE IS YOUR MAIN ARGUMENT
ACTIVELY SEEKING NUKE = STILL DISPUTED, BUT I'LL GIVE YOU THIS ONE
SUPPORTING AND HARBORING TERRORISTS = TRUE
VIOLATING RESOLUTION = TRUE
BRUTAL REPRESSION = TRUE
FAILING TO RETURN PROPERTY TO KUWAIT = TRUE

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
TRUE

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
TRUE

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
TRUE

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
THIS IS A LOGICAL ARGUMENT; IS IT ONLY BASED ON BUSH'S LIES OR COMMON SENSE AND CONNECTING THE DOTS?

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
TRUE

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
TRUE

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
TRUE

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
OOPS - FORGOT TO TELL CONGRESS THAT THIS WAS IRRELEVANT - TRUE!

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
TRUE

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
TRUE

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
TRUE

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
TRUE

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
TRUE

The authorization then follows. Seems to me that you have two or three nit-picks whereby Bush de-emphasized doubts, or stated WMD as fact. Does that make this 24-point authorization "based on lies"? Does that qualify for impeachment?

Not at all. I am saying that Mr. Bush, recognizing the substantial difference between airstrikes and invasion, sought Congressional approval. You're the one attempting to equate the two. Mr. Bush saw the difference that you refuse to acknowledge.


Your argument here is that there are 24 points, and that only two or three are relevant to the issue of Mr. Bush lying to Congress. The implicit assumption is that any single point is just as important as any other. So you are declaring that this statement:


is just as politically important at this statement:

Let's be honest here. The prime issue was WMD. That was the point that the administration hammered away at all through the runup to the Congressional vote. That was the point they themselves emphasized, not the history of the liberation of Kuwait. That was the politically important point, because it was the one that established imminent danger and the consequent need for immediate and decisive action. That was what sold the case. But it was based on a lie -- which is the impeachable offense.

While I'm tempted to quote the voluminuous statements from the administration about UN resolutions, brutality to the Iraqi people, shooting at our planes, spreading democracy in the middle east, I won't. WMD was the single biggest issue, but it was certainly only one of many that the administration articulated. Anti-war groups spent months ridiculing Bush's statements on democracy spreading, only to now deny that he ever said (or did) it. As Paul Wolfowitz noted here - WMD was emphasized because it was the easiest issue among many to understand and communicate - a political decision



Bush actually said that we couldn't wait until the threat was imminent. That's not exactly saying that there was imminent danger now, is it? "a grave and gathering threat" is not imminent. The logic was - a madman had WMD, used WMD, has not accounted for WMD, has terrorists lying about, why would we trust him - let's get rid of the guy. Or as your 'smoking gun' document puts it:
“The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programmes, but our tolerance of them post 11-September.”
And Congress bought the logic and they signed the authorization.

Here is the Senate investigation which lays the blame for faulty intel on bad "analytic tradecraft" and not on pressure by Bush. It also states that "the intelligence community" should have better explained the uncertainties to the administration.

Here is the corresponding British document where you can see that the Brits also believed:

For God's sake, we sent US military forces into the desert and made them wear chemical suits! Are you saying that this was some Orwellian publicity stunt? I'm to believe that our commander-in-chief not only ordered an illegal war based on lies, but that once he sent the troops into harms way, the command structure risked increased casualties by insisting (in order to preserve the lies) that troops fight in movement-impairing and heat-preserving chemical suits.

OK, so we're in basic agreement that the WMD issue lay at the core of the administration's political effort to convince Congress and the American people of the justification for invading Iraq. So now the question is, did the administration lie in presenting that evidence? We have already established that the information given was false; the only defense here is that the administration was misled by faulty intelligence and presented the case as they knew it honestly. However, this is defense is contradicted by the Downing Street Memo, which clearly shows an intent to distort the intelligence and the facts to support the policy. There is also Colonel Kwiatkowsky's evidence of deliberate distortion of intelligence in the Pentagon. There is also the administration's denigration of Mr. Blix's statements about uncertainties. There is also the use of factoids such as the yellowcake that had previously been shown to be false.

This overall pattern clearly shows a disregard for the truth in what was presented to the Congress. That's impeachable.

Wrong. There are many passages in these memos which demonstrate that both the US and UK firmly believed that there were WMD. Thereby disputing that they "lied" about WMD. What they show is how the administration worked to position the WMD case strongly as rationale for war, and that they were predisposed to regime change (the official US policy, one we were told of with some frequency on television since 1990).

Never heard of the Colonel, but if denigrating Mr. Blix' uncertainties is a crime, that's news to me.

Wrong. Still in dispute. Brits still have not repudiated their report.




Still waiting for your theory on why the chemical suits.

Would your retelling of the the "imminent threat" canard be an example of 'fixing facts'?

Well, let's look at the legal justifications for going to war. Spreading democracy in the middle east... not a legal justification for going to war. Brutality to the Iraqi people... not a legal justification for going to war. The United States, under existing international law, is not authorized to declare war against and invade another sovereign nation for either of these reasons. Can you provide any official document given to Congress that indicated that Iraq's actions regarding the shooting of our planes was considered by the administration to be legal justification for going to war? What is left? WMD's.

Many people seem to forget that this same administration, mere months before 9/11, stated publicly that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the US, and that he did not have the capability to manufacture or deploy WMD's and that UN Resolutions were working. Suddenly, however, he was and he did and they weren't. Was the evidence provided to support the existence of WMD's in Iraq the result of faulty intelligence? Maybe. If the Downing Street Memo is true, however, that assertion becomes less likely. This memo -- which indicates, quite clearly, an intent to adjust intelligence and facts to fit an existing policy, put forth by the Bush Administration, of pre-emptive action against Iraq -- certainly merits an inquiry into the actions of the President. If the memo is true, then the President has committed an impeachable offense of a nature that, in terms of crimes, exponentially exceeds that of President Clinton.

This is the President's legal justification for war:

Bush's letter to Congress

This was Bush's official statement to Congress, informing them of his reasons for acting on their authorization. There is no mention of spreading democracy, of Saddam's brutality to his own people. So, was Iraq a continuing threat to the United States? He wasn't before 9/11 and now it appears that those pre-9/11 assessments were true -- he was not a threat to the United States at the time Bush declared war. Were peaceful and diplomatic means working in regards to compliance with UN resolutions? They seemed to be, because Saddam had no WMD's. The missiles that the UN inspectors did find were destroyed. Was Iraq, in any way, connected to the attacks against the United States on 9/11? No. So, again, it comes down to the actions regarding the gathering of intelligence and facts that the President used to make these statements. Were the intelligence and facts adjusted to serve this ultimate end -- an invasion of Iraq and regime change (again, not a legal justification for war)? The Downing Street Memo is evidence that they might have been. If it is true, then the President of the United States just might have illegally declared war on another sovereign nation and misled Congress regarding his justifications for doing so. Is that not an impeachable offense? Is the possibility of his committing such an offense unworthy of investigation?

Regarding your chemical suits question... the answer depends on how far down the command structure such knowledge went. If the military commanders, following orders, were not aware that there were no WMD's, of course they would order soldiers to wear the appropriate gear. If the President was knew that there were no WMD's, but used them as legal justification for the war, it follows that he would not inform military commanders that chemical suits were unnecessary. If the President was lying, he obviously took no issue with having American casualties as a result of his actions -- he would've sent soldiers into harm's way on the basis of that lie in the first place.

What they "believed" is irrelevent, what they "said" however IS relevent. They presented disputed/refuted and downright false information as FACT. They didn't build their case saying "We believe Saddam has XY or Z or plans on doing AB and C with them". They took questionable, unconfirmed and speculative intel and stated it as FACT. THAT is the problem we have here.

Oh come on. Please. Here's what Blix offered in the report (in italic)(bold for empahsis):
In a February 28, 2003, report Hans Blix, the head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), concluded that Iraq had cooperated with the process for conducting inspections but had not provided sufficient information or tried hard enough to resolve the considerable uncertainties about the status of Iraq’s weapons program.

This paraphrase of Blix's report would further indicate Blix thought Iraq was not a MAJOR threat or he would have supported a cease of inspections and military actions immediately. If the threat seemed MAJOR, his willingness to continue inspections and his support of extending the inspections would have been idiotic. (Even david Kay confirmed what the report said.) Instead it was, without actiually saying so, tantamount to declaring Iraq's WMD threat and delivery capabilty to be almost nil after years of no-fly activity, bombings and inspections.

Contrary to popular belief in some less-informed corners, neither Blix nor Kay are idiots.

Hussein's decision to allow inspectors back in caught Bush, Cheney, Rove and others 'flat-footed'. They already had their fingers on the trigger.

1 - them shooting at our planes "many thousands of times" was in the resolution.
2 - Them shooting at our planes is, like "at" war already, no? What would we have to justify, but escalating that pre-existing war?
Actually, the letter specifically refers to continuing violation of Security Council resolutions, and specifically refers to the Iraq War Resolution. Which for your convenience I've posted above, and does indeed refer to all of the other reasons. See the multitudes of "whereas" in the document.


I've linked to 3 or 4 investigations just in this thread, none of which prove any impeachable offense.
OK, you believe that our sitting, twice-elected president is a liar, that he engaged in an "illegal" war, and that he moreover multiplied our chances of casualties by making sure that fake WMD intel informed our field commanders. I am starting to understand the intensity of the anti-war side of the argument. I disagree of course, but it explains the intensity.

So, we're impeaching a twice-elected president based on semantics, because he "said" what he "believed."

The United States remained at war with Iraq throughout the 1990s. No peace treaty was signed. There was a cease fire signed" a cease fire which depended upon Iraq fulfilling several conditions.

UN Resolution 1441, which passed after Bush had his authorization to go to war, clearly states that Iraq is in material breach of the cease fire agreement. There is nothing more that is needed for resumption of hostilities. You violate the cease fire agreement and the war continues (at the discretion of the second party). The fact that Bush got his authorization for resuming hostilities was really unneeded. What he did need (and he got) was Resolution 1441.

Unlike PacPanzer, who reads Hans Blix's report as an "all clear" on Saddam, I would focus on the passage that says:



"Considerable uncertainties" can in no stretch of the imagination be interpreted as Blix does not think they exist. There was no documentation as to where all that material went (to this day).

Let's not forget that Bush waited for almost six months before actually going into Iraq after receiving authorization from the Congress. Doesn't seem like a man who is rushing to war to me...

No, we'd be impeaching him for deliberately representing speculation as FACT. The only semantics coming into play here are Bush's defenders attempting to turn those deliberate misrepresentations into a mere matter fo semantics. It is one thing to "think" a thing, quite another to build a case around what you suspect, call them facts and scare the American people into supporting a war that I don't believe they would have supported otherwise.



Given that this was a UN Resolution and the troops involved in fighting the first Gulf War were not just US troops but also member nations, I'd say that it would be a UN issue to decide, not simply a US one and the fact remains that the reason given for the need to invade Iraq was that Saddam had WMD (which he did not). The fact also remains that the administration passed off disputed intel as fact.

Amlord: "Considerable uncertainties" can in no stretch of the imagination be interpreted as Blix does not think they exist. There was no documentation as to where all that material went (to this day).

Blix thought little enough of the implications you are asserting here that he was apparently willing to stay the course on inspections. Judging from what we've found after his hasty, war-caused evacuation, his theory that it WAS AT LEAST safe enough from a WMD point in Iraq to continue the inspections, has been borne out by what we have found.


Amlord: Let's not forget that Bush waited for almost six months before actually going into Iraq after receiving authorization from the Congress. Doesn't seem like a man who is rushing to war to me...

As for Bush waiting 6 months, we all know that had more to do with a logistical delay to build and amass troups and equipment, now, than any sort of try at a peaceful resolution.

Bottom line is Bush wanted the war and he used framed "evidence" to mislead the Americal people and Congress into a war with Saddam Hussein.

That is simply not true. There were some countries that thought there was "automaticity", but most didn't - including our ally Britain. To quote Jeremy Greenstock, the British ambassador to the UN the day 1441 passed:

So, the second resolution would be required and that's the meat of the Downing Street Minutes - the Brits didn't think this war would be legal. Without a second resolution, it would have to be a casus belli. So, they sent hundreds of inspectors into Iraq expecting to get thrown out, but that didn't happen. Saddam fully complied for that "6 month wait". The inspectors turned up squat, the intelligence was weak/thin, and without the second resolution, we sent 1700 Americans and 10's of thousands of Iraqis to their deaths.

The ONLY way this war would have been legal as it stood is if there were a clear imminent threat where war was in our self-defense. Since nothing in terms of intelligence changed since 9/11, but the rhetoric from the White House changed 180 degrees, it's obvious that the intelligence was "fixed" around the policy.

Let's not forget that 6 months before 1441, we were bombing the snot out of Iraq's hard targets (separate from enforcing the no-fly zones) to weaken them before an invasion. The plan was for the inspectors to get kicked out of Iraq to create the casus belli and invade, but Saddam burned them. As Hans Blix said:

Gee, did he nail that. But hey, at least there's a republican in the White House.

1 - all of the whereas's mentioned are reasons for granting the President the authorization for the use of force, but they are not the justifications for acting on that authorization. As I state later on, however, the chances are slim that the President would have gotten authorization without proof of WMD's, because many in Congress felt that this indicated a continuing threat to the United States. The criteria for acting on the authorization were very clear:



There is very clearly an "and" there meaning that both are necessary. If the national security of the United States was not under continuing threat from Iraq, the President had no authorization to use force.

2 - We are not at war until war is declared. The NFZ was created under UN resolution and was enforced by the UN, not the United States -- who participated in that enforcement. Hostilities against those planes were not hostilities against the United States, but against the imposing of a UN NFZ. So, no, there was no pre-existing war between the United States and Iraq exemplified in the shooting of planes.

It is also very clear that the chances of gaining authorization for the use of force were slim without proof of WMD's. Many members of congress have indicated that they would not have given authorization had there been no proof of WMD's -- because such proof was considered by congress to be the "continuing threat" to the United States. Therefore, evidence that the President may have left out crucial intelligence regarding the existence of WMD's is worthy of further investigation. If he did leave out intelligence that might have indicated that Iraq did not have the ability to threaten the United States, that is an impeachable offense.



Huh? What does it matter that he was twice-elected? What does it matter that he is the sitting President? Clinton was a sitting, twice-elected President. So, it seems that "sitting, twice-elected" means nothing when it comes to the possibility of withholding the truth. The fact is, this administration did not perceive of him as a threat just before 9/11. He was not a threat. Was this assessment not based on intelligence? How then did he suddenly become a threat? Apparently, he didn't. If it was important to members of congress that WMD's be present in order to give the President authorization for the use of force and we found no evidence of WMD's, why is it not valid to investigate the possibility that the President might have had access to intelligence that indicated that Iraq posed no threat to the United States?



Nobody is impeaching anybody yet. The meeting was about a possible resolution of inquiry. The Impeachment process would occur as a result of the findings of that inquiry. The question is not what he believed, but the type of information in front of him on which he based his belief. If there was information that indicated that Iraq posed no threat to the United States, Congress should have had access to that information. There is a possibility that that information did exist and that the administration did not give it to Congress. If that is the case and the President was aware of it, that is an impeachable offense.

Uh, yeah, semantically speaking, you're ALMOST correct. First, we have to believe HE BELIEVED the reports. I don't. I think he put pressure on Tenet to give the reports much-needed but highly dishonest credibility. I strongly believe he knew it when he was doing it.

As for impeachment based on semantics, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath - Bush wouldn't testify under oath. Both men used semantics. I believe both lied and I believe both had absolutely no doubt about what the real truth was.

Clinton's lies about his indiscretions with Lewinsky began a cover-up first to keep his family unaware and then to keep it from investigators in the Paula Jones matter. I have no doubt that Bush was every bit as dishonest as Clintoin was but with two very critical differences.

1) Bush wasn't under oath (even though you could argue his oath of office made him responsible for not hiding the truth) and the Downing Sreet memoes are not quite as telling as the Linda Tripp tapes.

2) Bush quite evidently pushed a 'manufactured' reason for going to war and in so doing, killed many young Americans and innocent Iraqi civilians.

Without an independent counsel to investigate, we may never know beyond a SHADOW of a doubt. However, a reasonable doubt was whisked from my mind long ago by just the body of evidence and the reflection on many of the administration's 'moving goal post' quotes in the ramp up to war. The Downing Street memo and the other related transcripts just confirmed what I already strongly suspected.

link

Who, exactly, convinced whom?

Recall that this occurred after Bush had already received backing from the Congress and the UN SC Resolution 1441.

Bush was dubious about the evidence. He was unconvinced about going to war until the very end of 2002.

You see, the VERY evidence you think exonerates Bush leads others, including me and a majority of the rest of the WORLD, to think this was a clear sign of Bush telling Tenet to frame the evidence in such a way as to convince "Joe Public" as Bush apparently likes to refer to his "subjects".

In NO way did Powell want to address the U.N., either. It is my own personal belief based on following the younger Bush for much longer than most of you here, that short of an independent counsel's thorough investigation, Powell remains, after Bush steps down, our best bet to hear the whole truth.

Just like the real damning Enron testimony is mysteriously being held with no prospect of the public hearing most of it until after Cheney and Bush have left office, so too, are the suggestions in the Downing Street notes. Cheney fought releasing the energy grid notes all the way to the Supreme Court. Why? Does anyone doubt they implicate HIM and probably Bush as well, in the Enron debacle? (Hint: Enron was Bush's largest lifetime contributor until they folded and now may only have slipped to third or fourth on the all-time list.)

Laughing at the Bush/Cheney refusal to testify before the 9-11 commission under oath or separately wasn't my first "ah ha" nor was it my first visit to the Bush Rodeo.

I simply cannot believe the President, especially when he is using a Ken Lay like defense of "Yes, I was CEO but THEY were the crooks who decided to do all this behind my back."

Dubious? You telling me that these are the statements of a President who is dubious about the evidence and unconvinced about going to war until the very end of 2002?

Press Conference March 13, 2002



President Discusses Iraq, Domestic Agenda with Congressional Leaders - September 18, 2002



President Bush Discusses Iraq with Congressional Leaders - September 26, 2002



Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat - Oct 7, 2002



These are the statements of a man who is dubious about the evidence? And these are just the Bush quotes found on the White House website and don't include the statements of fact made by Condoleeza Rice and Vice President -- the VP also stated that a particular defector provided evidence that Iraq was producing WMD when, in fact, the opposite was true. I mean, come on... really. Dubya dubious?

Additionally, Amlord, characterizing my statement that Saddam was not a MAJOR threat to U.S. security is hardly cut of the same cloth as saying I said the report gave Saddam an "All Clear". That re-phrasing of my statement was patently false.

I take offense to the mischaracterization of my statement just as I disagree that Bush EVER had any thoughts about waiting. As I said, Bush and the entire administration NEVER expected Hussein would let inspectors back in. They were using the inspection deadline timeline to ramp up. I won't re-iterate the excellent sourcing of quotes others have made here noting that Bush nor Cheney were never "dubious" as you put it. Their acceleration of the case against Hussein was classic in it's rapid and steady build-up with one statement following another that went farther and farther toward absolutism.

Bush knew well the weakness of the intelligence. Hence Tenet was cast as the sacrificial lamb who made the case and "fooled" all those other high level co-conspirators, er-uh, officials and advisors.

By that point, most of us would have gotten up to go get popcorn because we'd seen the sequel where Keneth Lay kept on saying "the accountants made him believe the books weren't cooked". Besides, we could read the subtitles even if we weren't fluent in Bushese. They read, "the CIA said the evidence was real".

The Downing Street Notes/Transcripts need to be looked into by an independent counsel.

I'd like a spot of Tea with my Yellowcake, please.

And who do you propose that Bush should listen to? The British MI6? Well they though Saddam could launch a chemical weapon attack in 45 minutes. Did Bush somehow pressure them into saying this?

If Bush "never wanted to wait" then why did he? He mentioned Iraq pretty well throughout 2002, but after getting "approval" in October, it still took him over 5 months to act? Can't the US war machine move quicker than that?

According to Woodward, Bush made up his mind to go into Iraq on New Year's Day, 2003. The actual war, of course, didn't start until mid-March.

In September of 2002, we had 30,000 troops in the Gulf region, just as we had throughout most of the 1990s. Doesn't appear we were imminently ready for war, although preparations were certainly being made.

Bush tries to cool Iraq war speculation


Doesn't look like Bush is ready to "pull the trigger" in August 2002.

As for the legality of the war, it looks like Russia and France thought the "Serious consequences" passage in 1441 could be interpreted as a legal basis for war: link


Of course, the version of 1441 which included both the "material breach" and "serious consequences" was the one that passed the UN Security Council.

The US was clear that it was its position that a second resolution would not be needed to authorize an attack on Iraq, should it fail to meet the demands of 1441:


link

Bush and Powell were up front about this to the UN.

I still find it hard to believe that people thing a leader would undermine their own case by publicly highlighting the doubts. Doubts are for behind the scenes (as the Woodward book shows), not for the public. Perhaps Beowulf was hesitant to kill Grendel, thinking he could be reformed...but we won't hear of such doubts in the Saga...

Bush should examine US intelligence, which one would assume, would be used to confirm British intelligence.



As has been noted before in this thread, the idea was to allow Saddam Hussein to reject harsher inspections and prevent inspectors from doing their job. If he did, it would give a solid casus belli, "a reason for war". When this did not happen, Bush decided to go to war anyway. This has been explained before in this thread.



One does not need to be imminently ready for war in order to intend to do it at some point regardless of the evidence.



I see, so we should take him at his word. Well, he also stated, seemingly without doubt, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction -- should we take him at his word in both cases? Perhaps the options he is referring to is the aforementioned intent to establish casus belli?



Yes, but Resolution does not decide that serious consequences will occur as a result of non-compliance, nor does it state that military conflict is that serious consequence. There is certainly nothing in it that authorizes the United States act outside the UN and pre-emptively declare war and invade a sovereign nation.



But you seem to forget that inspectors in early March of 2003 reported that Iraq was accelerating their cooperation with inspectors... the threat appeared to be working. Bush ignored this and invaded two weeks later. The ploy to establish casus belli failed and Bush went anyway. And it appears, now, that further inspections would have succeeded and no Americans needed to lose their life over this. The question becomes, was there evidence that this adminstration knew about which pointed to the fact that Iraq had no WMD's. The Downing Street Memo and statements from some who made reports that pointed to this conclusion indicate that they might have had this information, but chose to ignore it.



Well, it depends on what the case is. If the case is, "we need to get rid of Saddam no matter what," then I understand the need to refrain from highlighting doubts. But the case was that Iraq posed a threat to the United States, and unsubstantiated claims the existence of WMD's do not serve an honest case for war on those grounds. If the President and his staff had stated, "If it is found that he does have WMD's and is a threat to the United States, we will go to war," that is one thing. It still shows a strong position without misleading or unnecessarily inflaming the public. That would be the responsible way to go about it. If, as you say, the President was not gung-ho about war and was "dubious" about the evidence, then framing his statements around the truth would be the proper way to act as President and still show a position of strength on the issue.

But all the rhetoric, all the evidence points to a President who might have had the intention of going in anyway at some point, casus belli, weapons of mass destruction, doubts or no. As Resolution 1441 was related directly to WMD's, as many in Congress have stated that they would not have given the President authorization for the use of force if they knew that Iraq did not have WMD's... whether the President ignored evidence indicating that Iraq did not have WMD's is something that needs to be determined. If he did ignore such evidence and continued to make the case that Iraq had WMD's when it actually did not, then the President misled the citizens of this country and the result is the needless death of American soldiers. If this is the case, he should be impeached.

Hindsight is always 20/20. I know of no intelligence agency in the world which thought, in 2002, that Iraq did not have WMD or at the very least the capacity to manufacture WMD.

1441 states that Iraq remained in material breach of the cease fire agreement. It decided to give Iraq this "final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations". It further "Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations "

Blix's reports to the UNSC always included such "false statements and omissions". There were always things left out (unmanned aircraft, for example).

Bush felt that Saddam could covertly supply terrorists with WMDs. Because of this, time was of the essence (to a point). He continued to insist that the UN Security Council do something about Iraq and to enforce its own resolutions.

Perhaps he was hasty. "Rushing to war" over a period of 18 months might seem so to some.

The Downing Street memo simply does not jive with some other available evidence (particularly Bob Woodward's claims about the timing and about George Tenet's insistence that the case for WMD's was a "slam dunk"). Woodward tells us that Bush already knew what certain members of the administration wanted to do about Iraq and that he did not consult those members. Perhaps it was these members of the administration to which the Downing Street memo refers.

I wonder if those who would impeach Bush would also seek the recall of Tony Blair, John Howard, or any of the 46 other leaders who were in the Coalition of the Willing... Or were these leaders duped by Bush as well?

A few corrections first.

1)Were Saddam's chemical weapons capabilities EVER considered a threat to the U.S.? Of course not. Had we not attacked Iraq he would have had less success lobbing more scuds at Israel than he had achieved during the Gulf War.

2)Move faster than what? We didn't need SPEED! We needed a trained and supplied ARMY of TROOPS and EQUIPMENT. Think back to the news reports of the National Guard Reservists being called up to "get in fighting shape" and to be trained adequately. Bush's problem was not in sending an "Afghanistan-sized" force to certain death in a failed attack on much larger and more densely populated country. Yes there was a threat of Chemical Weapons ONLY because WE went into Iraq. There was never a real threat for those weapons to be deployed against Americans on U.S. soil. In fact, THAT threat from Iraqi-based insurgents and the foreign fighters this war has drawn has only reared its ugly head SINCE we attacked Iraq.

3)30,000 Troops? We actually NEEDED 10 times that many troops and even with Rumsfeld's mismanagement we still used over 150,000! I saw a news story tonight on CNN honoring heroes. One was the first from the state of Oregon to receive the Silver Star since World War II if memory serves. His life was saved because a buddy used extra Kevlar and other armor to wrap his driver's seat. Our troops were BADLY equipped to fight this war and they weren't given the necessary armored equipment to do the jobs they were asked to do. Who can forget the "Bake Sales" to buy body armor?

Using statements like the 30,000 troop number as proof that Bush was patient and dubious and the 45 minute window for a chemical weapons attack to exonerate Bush is simply "baiting" the argument with unsound examples which are then used to draw improper and inaccurate conclusions. Saddam had no mainland U.S. chemical weapon delivery capability PERIOD - ever - nor could Bush have fought the war EVEN with the dismissive Rumsfeld at the helm using the 30,000 troops you mention. He waited no longer than he had to according to his planners (who were then shown to have badly underestimated the number of troops needed.)

link to estimated number of troops needed from article written 02-26-03 - http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...25/205859.shtml

Not only is this horse dead but the two by four you've been using to RE-bludgeon the poor steed has disintegrated, too.

I simply cannot debate the above statements with someone who has no recollection of these very real and documented occurences that happened during the ramp up to this war.

I don't hate Bush. I just find it extremely distatsteful when people make excuses for some of the things I truly believe he did willfully and knowingly. The bad thing about a good debate is that someone CAN be mistaken. Now, if you came to me and told me Bush had decided to conquer Iraq in order to have a base of operations in the Middle East from which to strike terrorist and extremist states that threatened the region's stability and further, to have a base from which to defend the orderly flow of the world's oil supply, I would say it was probably not too bad an idea strategically or militarily but I would have also added that I thought the idea was as morally bankrupt as his administration and that it reeked of nation-building. However, the American people were not told anything of the sort and the Congress would NOT have bought it if they had been told that.

Bush knew it wouldn't sell so he had Tenet fix the evidence and unless there is an independent counsel appointed, we may not live to see the real truth come out.

So while American companies are in upheaval changing from a peacetime economy to one based on war, we have lots of Bush Pioneers and Rangers who are making a killing in business while insurgents are making a business of killing our kids.

These guys are still at it. Kenneth Lay still isn't talking but we got Martha Stewart before she hurt anybody.

Seinfield had a word to describe the world we are seeing today. He called it Bizarro World.

Yes, as I've been trying to say they've been viewed as a threat to the U.S. for years.

INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT BY JIM LEHRER OF NEWS HOUR
Why do we keep pretending the threat of WMD was something Bush came up with?

Perspective, folks this situation has been playing out for over a decade.

Yes, as I've been trying to say they've been viewed as a threat to the U.S. for years.

No matter how you debate this issue, you are forgetting that Hussein allowed the inspectors to return and that BUSH told them to get out and then began the war. Almost every fact NOW points to OTHER effects as being responsible for actually disarming Saddam's capabilities and removing WMD's from Iraq whether by inspections, sanctions, atrition, selling, smuggling or some combination thereof. It is highly doubtful that the vast majority of ANY of that was accomplished by sending the troups in - even the weapons inspectors were finding destroyed weapons and facilities that were supposedly, according to prior administration reports, still functional. I will give you that not ALL possibilities had been exhausted but I will repeat that Saddam was no threat to deliver WMDS to U.S. soil. (No fair using the "he could have sold them to terrorists" line with what we know about the former Soviet Union, Pakistan and other rich sources for corrupt distribution of WMD material and Biological agents to terrorists.)

People forget that religious zealots in Iraq under Saddam were kept under control and without a great deal of money or power unlike their counterparts in many other Middle East countries including Saudi Arabia.

As for the threat status, the Chinese Navy is building subs at a rate that will dominate the Pacific with 25 years and just as Russia collapsed from trying to police its conquered territories, we stretch ourselves extremely too thin in picking battles we NEVER should have fought. Afghanistan and the capture of Bin Laden should have remained the focus but instead we skipped 7 or 8 places down a list of "Bad Boy" nations and states to wrongly extend the war on TERROR beyond the people responsible for 9-11 while still not bringing its mastermind to justice.

Our children will be speaking a dialect of Chinese long before they are forced to speak Farsi.

THERE is your perspective.

Shrinking Navy/Growing Chinese Submarine Fleet transcript not yet available at this site from last night's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" program: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ldt.html - check later.

Yes, but a: that was 1998, b: President Clinton did not state that Iraq actually had WMD's, and c: the Bush Administration in 2001 made very clear statements as to how Iraq was not a threat.





Do these sound like the statements of an administration that views Iraq as a threat?

I think you'll find my memory is pretty sharp when it come to this issue. I have research to thank for that.

First of all Clinton did precisely the same thing in ordering inspectors out later that year in order to start "Operation Desert Fox."


The key was not just the presence of inspectors but Iraq's full compliance with disarmament procedure. Something that never came about.



Heh. All's fair in love and... what again?


If the President of the United States can say on national television that terrorists armed with WMD are a threat I can post in a a discussion on the matter.

Maybe Iraq wasn't the only threat, but Clinton sure said it was one of them.


Of course this has nothing to do with the topic.


Pardon? Clinton didn't say there where WMD?

I guess all that talk about anthrax was just a hypothtical. Hey maybe Bush's was too.

At the end of 1998 he starting a large bombing campaign to destroy what exactly?

Clinton announces Iraq strikes: Full text

As for the statement it seems you are reading into them more than they actually say, let's take a look.



Which of course says nothing about his pre-existing WMD which at the time were not at all accounted for.

Conventional weaponry was never the concern.

Rice and Powell explained the situation hadn't gotten any worse, they never said it had gotten better.

Hindsight certainly is 20/20 but those of us that were paying attention saw all of this in 2002, 2003 and 2004 Amlord. In fact, several of those debates (from 2003 onward anyway) were hosted here on America's Debate and if you go back and look through them, you'll see that many of the people making there case here were saying the same things in 2003 - I know I certainly was. Surprise, surprise.

As Dayton Rocker pointed out in this post the opinion of intelligence agencies and our government magically changed despite any sort of new evidence. I can guarantee you this fact was posted back in 2003 when we were having these same debates along with the then current quotes showing the change.

Those of us that were paying attention saw a few things in the run up to the war. On the one hand Blix was basically saying that evidence for WMD was inconclusive - other posters in this thread have quoted and analyzed his statements so I won't repeat them here. For everyone's opinions to change so drastically in a matter of months there would have to be some basis for that change, clearly the man inspecting the country didn't see anything there. His basic complaint was that the Iraqis didn't keep very good records and therefore couldn't "prove" they had destroyed the WMD they had manufactured. Secondly, Iraq seemed to be cooperating with the United Nations and allowing unprecedented access to their facilities. This wasn't like the last round of inspections before inspectors were kicked out where stories hit the news daily about Saddam denying access to certain facilities.

On the other hand I saw Bush, Blair and all of their respective cronies making speeches that claimed with absolute certainty that Iraq had WMD, they intended to use them and they were a huge threat. This was all done without providing any sort of smoking gun evidence. There were never any doubts, qualified statments or maybes - they spoke with absolute certainty. It most certainly conflicted with the reservations expressed by Blix and the UN on this subject.

So here I was, someone that supported the actions we took in Afghanistan, trying to figure out what the deal with Iraq was. It was very clear to me at the time that we didn't conclusively know anything and Iraq appeared to be cooperating yet at the same time our government was aggressively marching towards war and speaking in certainties and absolutes. As it turns out with 20/20 hindsight I was right. Fine. The point of this whole Downing Street Memo deal is that we now have proof that the administration was selectively using facts to make a case for war and really had no interest whatsoever in the truth.

1. Did you watch the hearings or only read about them?
I've read them.

2. Based on the information you have, is there enough evidence to begin the impeachment process of Bush and/or Cheney?

I believe that there is more than ample evidence and an actual investigation by an independent counsel would certainly drag out more, but that doesn't really matter. There is certainly more than enough evidence to impeach them for the same thing Clinton was impeached for - lying, but that doesn't matter either. Impeachment is a matter of politics and political will. We currently have a Republican majority in Congress and therefore we'd never get anywhere with any sort of impeachment proceedings because none of the Republican Senators are honest enough to really look at the facts and realize they were duped along with everyone else. They are going to circle the wagons for their party.

There are a few amongst them that from time to time have surprised me with various statements, such as Voinovich on Bolton, but then they go ahead and vote the party line proving they have no integrity.

I may not agree with their positions on how the world should be run, but I would think they should have enough integrity to realize that they shouldn't look to achieve their objectives by lying to the american people. If they are really right, the facts should bear that out.

Clinton went through the impeachment process for a ridiculous reason, but that was because the Republicans were gaining power and they wanted to strike a blow against him. Perhaps it was sour grapes due to the 1996 elections, I don't know. However I would think that lies about getting serviced in the Oval Office are far less serious than lies which result in the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, the mutalations of thousands more and billions of dollars down the drain.

Your equating Operation Desert Fox with Operation Iraqi Freedom is too much like comparing the Korean War to the Grenada invasion. They weren't even CLOSE in scope, size, ramifications or costs in both money and lives. I made the point about the shrinking sub fleet in order to show how badly Bush's misplaced priorities will affect us in the next 25 years but apparently THAT very real possible scenario was wasted on you, too.

For the record and for priority's sake, China will eventually be the largest and most sophisticated super-power in the world. Our 5 year stem cell head start is fast evaporating to a China where Communist beliefs aren't burdened with our own moral conflict about such research. They have a population that could easily produce an army that would outnumber every man, woman and child in the U.S. Canada and Great Britain. They have the technology, resources and growing economy to be able to equip and train such an army.

Yet the Bush administration makes Iraq our number one priority and cons the country and Congress in order to accomplish it.

The War on the terroists responsible for 9-11 should have been focused on the perpetrators of that act. NONE were Iraqis. How many times must that go into someone's head without sticking somewhere? Bush sold America and Congress on waging a full-fledged war NOT on the terrorists responsible for 9-11 but on a dictator who couldn't deliver WMD's to the Mediterranean, let alone the U.S.

Before you take the trouble to tell me he had used weapons in the past agaisnt his own people and that he gassed the Kurds, save your breath. We're talking 1992. While those acts should have been prevented, the capabilty to repeat them most likely wasn't even possible with the weapons and delivery systems Condi and Colin said he had in 2001.

He had no air force, he had no ICBM delivery system. He had nothing to deliver chemical and biological agents to U.S. shores EVEN if you believe he may have had some hidden. He ranked WELL behind other World Class Bad Boy regimes as a potential threat to U.S. Security. A half dozen others are actually known to have WMDs and/or delivery systems.

Bringing up Anthrax and somehow suggesting or blaming Saddam for the letters to certain U.S. targets STILL did not require the conquest of Iraq.

There is enough evidence to begin an investigation by an independent counsel into the switch from the hunt for the terrorists responsible for 9-11 to an all-out attack on a sovereign nation that did not attack us or pose a threat to U.S. security even though the Bush administration cleverly changed the spin to sell us on the totally false idea that the War against Iraq was synonymous with a war on terror.

There is excellent documentation in the posts above from Cube Jockey and Entspeak about the REAL opinions shared by those within the Bush administration with regard to Iraq's viabilty as a major threat to U.S. security.

There is so much we should be doing both offensively and defensively in the world and Iraq simply isn't one of them. the President deserves heavy scrutinity for squandering U.S. lives and resources in this way. If it can be proven he did so knowingly (and the Downing Street notes suggest he did), he should be impeached.

..and just when did I say they were equal?

Comparison of the size is missing the point entirely. The motivation is what is at question and it was the same, threat of Iraqi WMD.


It really helps if one reads Blix's report to understand his concerns about Iraqi "cooperation."


Hans Blix's Report to the Security Council
Iraq was told to supply these documents before the destruction of WMD had even begun. It isn't like the request for them came as a surprise. Iraq simply refused to cooperate.

Full text: Blix briefing

This is not simply a case of "bad record keeping" clearly Blix suspected a method to the madness here.

It is not unreasonable to see that Bush did as well.
Editted to Add:
Yet more goodies

Press Conference by Blix and ElBaradei on Omissions in Iraq's Declaration

This is unbelievable. Is it that difficult to justify a "righteous and just" war on just the facts? Is it so difficult, that you need to make absurd comparisons to vindicate one of the grossest errors in history?

Clinton pulled out weapons inspectors because Saddam